1. Pamatong v. COMELEC, G.R. No.

161872, April 13, 2004

Doctrine: Provisions of the Constitution that are not self-executing does not contain any judicially enforceable
constitutional right but merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action

Facts:
When the petitioner, Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong, filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Presidency, the Commision on
Elections (COMELEC) refused to give the petition its due course. Pamatong requested a case for reconsideration.
However, the COMELEC again denied his request. The COMELEC declared Pamatong, along with 35 other people, as
nuisance candidates, as stated in the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC noted that such candidates “could not
wage a nationwide campaign and/or are either not nominated by a political party or not supported by a registered
political party with national constituency.” Pamatong argued that this was against his right to “equal access to
opportunities for public service,” citing Article 2, Section 26 of the Constitution, and that the COMELEC was indirectly
amending the Constitution in this manner. Pamatong also stated that he is the “most qualified among all the
presidential candidates” and supported the statement with his legal qualifications, his alleged capacity to wage
national and international campaigns, and his government platform.

Issue(s):
Whether or not COMELEC’s refusal of Pamatong’s request for presidential candidacy, along with the grounds for such
refusal, violate the right to equal access to opportunities for public service.

Held:
No. The Court noted that the provisions under Article II are generally considered not-self executing. As such, the
provision in section 26, along with the other policies in the article, does not convey any judicially enforceable rights.
Article 2 “merely specifies a guideline for legislative or executive action” by presenting ideals/standards through the
policies presented. Article 2, Section 26 recognizes a privilege to run for public office, one that is subject to limitations
provided by law. As long as these limitations are enforced without discrimination, then the equal access clause is not
violated. The Court justified the COMELEC’s need for limitations on electoral candidates given the interest of ensuring
rational, objective, and orderly elections. In the absence of any limitations, the election process becomes a “mockery”
if anyone, including those who are clearly unqualified to hold a government position, is allowed to run.

Note: Pamatong presented other evidence that he claims makes him eligible for candidacy. The Court however stated
that it is not within their power to make such assessments. The COMELEC case was remanded to COMELEC for
reception of further evidence to determine whether Pamatong is a nuisance candidate.